ArticleClinical medicine insights. Ear, nose and throat2019
Blood Loss and Visibility with Esmolol vs Labetalol in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Clinical medicine insights. Ear, nose and throat, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of esmolol continuous infusion on blood loss in patients undergoing posterior lumbar internal fixation surgery: A prospective randomized study.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Trial
- Comparison of Oral Preoperative Clonidine with Infusion of Intraoperative Labetalol on Bleeding during Tympanoplasty Surgery.Iranian journal of otorhinolaryngology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesImproved intraoperative visibility during functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) decreases the risk of serious orbital or skull base injuries. Esmolol and labetalol have been used to reduce bleeding and achieve better visibility, but it remains unclear which drug is more effective. This study aims to measure visibility scores and mucosal bleeding rates for esmolol and labetalol in FESS.
methodsThis is a 1-year randomized double-blind trial of adults undergoing FESS at a tertiary academic center. The inclusion criteria were as follows: age 18 or older; history of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps; undergoing FESS for CRS; and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status 1 (healthy) or 2 (patient with mild systemic disease). The exclusion criteria were as follows: pregnancy; asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), bradycardia, heart failure, end-stage renal disease, cerebrovascular accident, diabetes mellitus; preoperative use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), aspirin, or beta-blockers; and body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m
resultsOf the 32 adults given drug (mean age = 50), 28 patients (13 esmolol and 15 labetalol) with complete data were included in the final analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between esmolol and labetalol in rate of blood loss (0.59 [0.28] vs 0.66 [0.37] mL/min,
conclusionsThere were no significant differences between esmolol and labetalol in rate of blood loss, MAP control, HR, or surgical visibility in FESS. Either drug may be used, and other considerations (availability, cost) can dictate choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.